State v. Patrick D. Jefferson

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
October 20, 2021
To:
Hon. Jeffrey S. Froehlich
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Connie Daun
Clerk of Circuit Court
Calumet County
Electronic Notice
Erica L. Bauer
Electronic Notice
Nathan F. Haberman
Electronic Notice
Jacob J. Wittwer
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP1558-CR State of Wisconsin v. Patrick D. Jefferson (L.C. #2017CF204)
Before Gundrum, P.J., Neubauer and Grogan, JJ.
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Patrick D. Jefferson appeals a judgment of conviction for armed robbery as party to a
crime and an order denying his postconviction motion. He argues the circuit court erroneously
exercised its sentencing discretion when it found him ineligible for the Challenge Incarceration
Program and Substance Abuse Program. Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we

No. 2020AP1558-CR
2
conclude at conference that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT.
RULE 809.21 (2019-20).1 We summarily affirm.
Jefferson was tried by a jury and convicted of armed robbery as party to a crime. The
circuit court sentenced Jefferson to a bifurcated prison term consisting of thirteen years’ initial
confinement and fifteen years’ extended supervision. At sentencing, defense counsel noted that
the presentence investigation report (PSI) indicated Jefferson was ineligible for the Challenge
Incarceration Program and Substance Abuse Program. Counsel nonetheless requested that the
court find Jefferson eligible and “let the Department of Corrections sort that out, and if he’s
eligible, great. If he’s not, they’ll make that determination.” The court found Jefferson
ineligible for both programs. Jefferson filed a postconviction motion asserting that he was
sentenced based on inaccurate information in the PSI regarding his program eligibility.2 The
court denied the motion.
Jefferson argues the circuit court erroneously exercised its sentencing discretion by
deeming him ineligible for the Challenge Incarceration Program, see WIS. STAT. § 302.045, and
the Substance Abuse Program, see WIS. STAT. § 302.05.3 Both programs require a circuit court
to determine program eligibility as part of the exercise of its sentencing discretion. See
1 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.
2 Jefferson also sought sentence modification or, in the alternative, program eligibility based on
ineffective assistance of counsel.
3 Jefferson uses the phrase “abuse of discretion.” Our supreme court abandoned that terminology
in 1992 in favor of the phrase “erroneous exercise of discretion.” See City of Brookfield v. Milwaukee
Metro. Sewerage Dist., 171 Wis. 2d 400, 423, 491 N.W.2d 484 (1992).

No. 2020AP1558-CR
3
§§ 302.045(2)(cm), 302.05(3)(a)2.; see also WIS. STAT. § 973.01(3g), (3m).4 The State’s brief
contains an accurate description of the programs, both of which are designed to treat inmates
with substance abuse issues. Upon completion of the programs, the inmate is entitled to have his
or her remaining confinement time converted to extended supervision. See §§ 302.045(3m),
302.05(3)(c).
Jefferson correctly notes that program eligibility is assessed using the same sentencing
considerations that govern the ultimate sentencing determination. See State v. Steele, 2001 WI
App 160, ¶¶9-10, 246 Wis. 2d744, 632 N.W.2d 112. The circuit court reasoned that although
Jefferson had “some limited history of drug and alcohol use,” there was no indication those
substances had any bearing on the crime, “contrary to what the Court normally sees with these
serious felony offenses.” The court stated it was particularly unlikely that Jefferson was under
the influence of alcohol or THC at the time that he led police on a high-speed chase following
the robbery. The court concluded its remarks about program eligibility by stating, “[t]hat is a
limited resource that should actually be used for someone that has those substance abuse issues,
and they’re just not present here.”
Jefferson argues the circuit court failed to “consider Jefferson’s unique circumstances but
rather relied upon an improper factor, the appropriate use of resources by the Department of
Corrections, and additionally, relied upon findings of fact contrary to the record.” Contrary to
Jefferson’s argument, we do not perceive the court to have been improperly opining upon how
the Department of Corrections prioritizes program candidates and allocates its resources. Rather,
4 It is generally undisputed that Jefferson otherwise satisfied the statutory eligibility criteria.

No. 2020AP1558-CR
4
the court’s more basic point was that the programs were not necessary to meet Jefferson’s
rehabilitative needs.
In that regard, Jefferson merely assumes the record establishes that he did, in fact, have a
substance abuse problem. Jefferson relies on his own statements to the PSI author, asserting that
his admitted use of THC three to four days per week (totaling approximately one-half of an
ounce) and his consumption of a few alcoholic drinks on weekends show a “possible substance
abuse problem.” In Jefferson’s view, upon being presented at sentencing with admissions of
“problematic drug use,” a circuit court should presume that counseling will enhance
rehabilitative efforts.
The record does not support Jefferson’s assertions. The PSI author determined Jefferson
was “unlikely to have a serious substance abuse problem” based on his substance abuse score.
Though Jefferson admitted using drugs and alcohol on a regular basis, he told the PSI author he
regarded their use as a “social activity,” mostly consuming them while he was at friends’ homes
or with others. Jefferson emphasizes that he also told the PSI author he had used by himself and
to cope with difficult times. However, by Jefferson’s own account, he was “not a heavy user and
his use has not caused him to ‘do bad things.’” Jefferson stated he had never committed a crime
while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, including the armed robbery, and he “[did] not feel
his past or current legal problems are due to his use of alcohol or drugs.” Furthermore, Jefferson
did not believe his alcohol or drug use had any effect on him, his family, or his relationships, and
he had never experienced withdrawals, blackouts, overdoses, or any serious side effects from his
consumption. Jefferson reported abstaining from drugs and alcohol for periods of up to two
months.

No. 2020AP1558-CR
5
To the extent Jefferson argues the circuit court was required to accept his representations
to the PSI author regarding his history of drug and alcohol use and to give presumptive, or even
dispositive, weight to those representations, we note he has provided no authority for such an
assertion. Rather, the court could reasonably view Jefferson’s claimed substance abuse as self-
serving, since completion of the Challenge Incarceration Program or Substance Abuse Program
could reduce his confinement time. Jefferson’s bald assertions about the quantity of substances
he consumed, as well as his belief that he might benefit from treatment, do not overcome the
court’s finding that he does not have a serious substance abuse problem so as to warrant special
programming.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that the judgment and order of the circuit court are summarily affirmed,
pursuant to WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals